How much is each one of us worth? And where do we find this answer? Some of us will look at our life insurance policies and quote the figure that our family might get if we were to die. Others may have a critical illness policy that places this value through what the family would get if we were unable to work anymore, say due to illness. And still others may think of the Valentine’s day flowers they received just a week ago and decide that they are priceless – at least to someone! And I am sure there are some who have never felt they needed to ask themselves that question, or indeed have anyone ask it of them – they know their value and so do others.

Certain individuals always seem to raise more questions about worthiness than others – migrants being an obvious category as evidenced by all the discussion on how migrants can prove they are worthy of citizenship in the UK.

‘Housewives’ are another. This week a poll of 4,000 housewives for an online networking website alljoinon.com ‘suggested that the average mum worked for nearly nine hours a day every day. The website said a housewife would earn almost £30,000 a year if she was employed to do all the same errands.’ This is significantly higher than the UK’s average annual wage of £23,700.

Photograph taken by Geekgirly. Used under Creative Commons license.

There is a lot going on in this snippet – for one, ‘housewives’ is not a category we hear much about any more so it had me intrigued as to why we don’t really hear much about this ‘category’ anymore. Have they fallen off all policy agendas and media interest? Or are they now called something else? In this snippet it is also assumed that all housewives are mums – has the model of the working woman become so ubiquitous that the only ‘housewives’ in the country are mums? What of women, who do not have children, are they not housewives too? And then the article calls what a housewife does ‘errands’ – cleaning the toilet never feels like an errand to me!

But what really riveted me in reading this piece was the fact that yet again we see a desire to calculate the value of housework. Back in 1972 Chase Manhattan Bank estimated the value of housework undertaken per household in the US at $257 per week. In 1978 Canadian housework was valued at 40% of GNP. By 1984 in Germany the value of "house and family work" was estimated at three times total government expenditure. Clearly, these attempts at calculation have been going on for some time now.

Social scientists too are in on the act. In the 1970s most of the analysis of housework revolved around the sexual division of housework and its economic value in a capitalist society. Feminists argued that women who did most of the housework without pay within their own households contributed to the economy by subsidizing the family wage and by ensuring the growth of the next generation of workers at a rate far cheaper than that which could be purchased in the market. And some feminists argued for the need to place a value on housework so that those who did housework would be adequately and appropriately remunerated. As Selma James, one of the founder members of the Wages for Housework Campaign said many years ago "Work that is not valued is not happening and therefore cannot be refused".

However, for other feminists there was something about the love and affection that went into ironing children’s clothes and in cooking their food which was never easily calculable. They argued that the psychological and the ideological aspects of housework were omitted in economic calculations of ‘worth’. As Diane Elson, an economist, argued in 1991, household work cannot be assessed solely in terms of its economic utility as it has an intrinsic value and not merely an instrumental value. The emotional elements of housework contribute as much to society even though there may be no way of counting exactly what these contributions are worth. And then there may be other elements of housework that never come into calculations. They plainly do not qualify for calculation – indeed, they may even resist any attempts to put a value on them. And if we were to be humble we could even say that we simply do not know what they are worth.

So today when we weigh up yet again how much housewives are worth, it might be useful to remind ourselves of how worth is counted up and the qualities that never come to be calculated when we take stock of our own and others’ worth to society. Perhaps, it is that incalculable quality that the Valentine’s card evokes. And one day we may even be able to extend that incalculable worthiness to the strangers around us – to recognise the limits of simply numerically evaluating the ‘worth of migrants’ to the UK.

About the author

Parvati Raghuram is Lecturer in Geography at the Open University. Her research interests focus on the ways in which the mobility, of individuals, goods and of ideas is reshaping the world.

Every now and again you read a news report in the media which connects with real life in the most profound ways. You may have read some of the increased media coverage about the black steel band ejected from a budget airline because someone thought they were terrorists. They have become known as the Talipan.

In the first week in February it made all sorts of connections when I read about the black steel band led by a blind calypso musician who won damages against one of our leading budget airlines for ejecting them from a flight from Sardinia because a British psychology lecturer on holiday with his family complained he thought they were terrorists. It spoke volumes about the way post 9/11 hysteria can impinge on human rights. It touched on the power of casual racism and intolerance to shape human action. It said much about the treatment of people with a disability. It showed how mere suspicion, however groundless, can have grave ramifications and how regulations can often make situations far worse than they are.

I was partly drawn to the case because I too am a regular visitor to Sardinia and have used the same airline on numerous occasions, flying in and out of Alghero.

The incident happened on New Year's Eve 2006. After performing to critical acclaim on the island the London based Caribbean Steel International Orchestra, whose four members were the only black passengers onboard , were escorted off a Stansted bound plane at gunpoint after the lecturer threatened to remove his family from the plane if the pilot did not insist upon the band's removal. The band's leader is believed to be the only blind tenor pan player performing in the world today.

The band had sat together in the terminal building, a fact that had been noted by the suspicious passenger. He grew alarmed when he saw band members sit separately by the windows. on the plane (they had pre-booked priority window seats on the flight which resulted in them sitting apart). Following the complaint that he thought they were terorists the crew evicted the five musicians from the plane and they were escorted to the airport building for interrogation by the armed Sardinian authorities.

Photograph taken by Soon. Used under Creative Commons license.

The university lecturer had also complained to the stewards that the blind band leader, who was wearing dark glasses, was behaving suspiciously. The lecturer thought he was 'reading a newspaper'. The band leader had sat next to a passenger reading a newspaper and, being an avid football supporter, had asked him to read out the football scores for him. As he did so the leaders' glasses appeared to scour the result page in the passenger's newspaper.

After a 20 minute delay while their identities were checked by the Italian authorities the band were given permission to rejoin their flight home. However, the captain refused access even though the band’s leader had his disability card inspected and his sightless eyes verified. He had lost his sight in 1983 after a cataract operation failed.

In court the budget airline claimed the captain had taken the 'safety first option' after he noted 'tension' on the flight because of the incident.  After promptings from the band's MP the budget airline offered the band members £100 each and vouchers for their flights home, but no apology. Although the band were allowed to leave the island on New Year's Day they had to fly to Liverpool instead of Stansted forcing an uncomfortable overnight stay because they missed their London bus connection and could not find a hotel room that early in the morning. The band were forced to spend a very cold and wet New Years Day night in a kebab shop and then a bus shelter before the bus station opened and they could return to London. They arrived home two days later than they had intended and missed spending the New year with their families.

Each member was awarded £800 compensation, in addition to the extra costs each incurred of £190.  In his written judgment District Judge Southcombe told the City of London county court the captain had 'ample time' to reassess the situation once the Italian authorities had checked each band member's identity and papers. 'Just because a passenger was black or someone did not like the look of him or her, it was not acceptable to offload that passsenger', he explained.

Judge Southcombe concluded that the band's ‘embarrassment at being the only black persons removed from the aircraft at gunpoint for no reason, their inability to be with their families and friends on New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day, the overnight stay in the cold in Liverpool have to be taken into account’. The sum awarded, he declared, reflected the ‘extreme situation’ the band found themselves in. The psychology lecturer did not in fact give evidence in court.  Various media reports suggested that he was in fact a professor of psychology.

The budget airline is appealing against the verdict while the band members have called for an investigation into the incident by the Civil Air Authority. The budget airline has still steadfastly refused to offer the band a full apology. It commented: 'while we sincerely regret the inconvenience they suffered, our crew were absolutely right to prioritise passenger safety/ security at all times'.

The story begs many questions. Would the incident have happened if the band had sat together on the plane? Would the incident have happened if the band's members were all white? Would the lecturer's suspicions have been aroused if the band leader was of normal sight?  Why did the reported 'tension' spread so rapidly among the passengers? Was the reaction of the captain excessive? Why, once the band member's papers had been checked, were they not allowed back on the flight when it was clear they were talented musicians returning home from a successful tour of Sardinia? And why were the budget airline's regulations followed with such prejudice when it was clear that there was in fact no danger to the plane, or the occupants?

Some might argue that such extreme situations are justified in the post 9/11 context, that the captain had no alternative but to deny the band access even after the Italian authorities had checked all the documentation.

But consider this. What if the band members were in fact terrorists but white skinned and their leader able-bodied? It would be highly unlikely that they would have been stopped. The lecturer’s suspicions would not have been so aroused.

As Roosevelt once observed in the last century in another decade noted for its paranoia, quite often there is 'nothing to fear except fear itself’. Indeed, one might argue that exhibiting racist behaviour on an airplane could itself, if taken to extremes, be prejudicial to the safety of the occupants. It is also outrageous that, not for the first time, the budget airline concerned showed such scant regard towards a passenger with a disability.

And the final irony? Guess who is playing at the opening of Terminal 5 at Heathrow in March. Yes, you guessed it. The Caribbean Steel International Orchestra!

I doubt if the budget airline will dare show its face, do you?

For a revealing interview with two of the members of the Caribbean Steel International Orchestra see Grounded from guardian.co.uk.

About the author

Dick Skellington edits Society Matters for the Faculty of Social Sciences at the Open University. He’s an administrator who manages the Environment, Development and International Studies programme.

As a Cambridge resident I’ve become hardened to the presence of film crews, which arrive each winter for carols from King’s, and at other times to garner footage for assorted tv dramas and Hollywood features. On Saturday, the city centre was the setting for a costume drama of a quite different sort, as a crowd of curious shoppers and tourists jostled with television cameras. The celebrity drawing them to the doors of Great St. Mary’s Church was Archbishop Rowan Williams, who was about to process to a nearby college as part of a memorial event for his recently deceased former teacher, Charlie Moule.

As a Judaism specialist, I’ve found Williams’ speech on religious and civil law, and the controversy it’s provoked, fascinating. Like Islam, Judaism has its own religious legal system, the halakhah, which guides and governs every aspect of life. And for years, the civil law has in various ways accommodated the needs of those Jews who wish to live a halakhic life. In January MPs debated (and rejected) a Daylight Saving Bill. One of the objections raised was the impact it would have on Orthodox observant Jews. Rules for the timing of daily prayer would mean that in wintertime people could face a difficult choice - pray at the correct time and be late for work, or get to the office on time, but disregard a central religious obligation.  

Interestingly, civil acknowledgement of religious law is not always about the ‘secular’ giving way to the ‘spiritual’. There is a halakhic principle that ‘the law of the land is law’ – that is, Jews should recognise and obey the law of the land in which they live. More specifically, when an Orthodox Jewish couple separate, they need two divorces – one civil, and the other, religious. Women cannot initiate the religious divorce, and where the husband is unwilling to do so, they become trapped or ‘chained’ wives. Because rabbis are teachers and interpreters of the halakhah – not legislators – it is often impossible for such women to be released, although it’s universally agreed that they should be. In 2002, Parliament passed the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act, which allows a civil judge to withhold a civil divorce until the husband has provided his wife with a religious one. This move was much celebrated and much campaigned for. But in asking Parliament to help in this way, Orthodox Jews were also in the curious position of looking to the civil system for an answer to a problem that the divinely authoritative halakhah is seemingly unable to resolve.

Given the vagueries of press releases and the popular misconceptions surrounding sharia it seems that despite this healthy precedent of civil-religious co-existence, the present furore will continue for a few days more at least. Some of those in Saturday’s crowd certainly were there to heckle. But the embattled Archbishop may perhaps take comfort in the knowledge that others loitered in the mistaken hope (as one whispered rumour had it) of catching sight of a new episode of Dr. Who. Rowan Williams will soon be yesterday’s celebrity.